Technological Forecasting & Social Change

Technological Forecasting & Social Change 125 (2017) 58–65 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Technological Forecasting & Social Change journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/techfore The sharing economy in social media: Analyzing tensions between market MARK and non-market logics ⁎ Christofer Laurella, , Christian Sandströmb a Stockholm School of Economics Institute for Research and Jönköping International Business School, Box 6501, SE-113 83 Stockholm, Sweden b Chalmers University of Technology and the Ratio Institute, Vera Sandbergs Allé 8B, SE-412 96 Göteborg, Sweden ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT Keywords: How is the sharing economy framed and who are the main actors driving current developments? Utilizing Social Sharing economy Media Analytics (SMA) for institutional analysis, we track the formation of the sharing economy in Sweden, its Market logic actors and their impact. Our findings reveal that the sharing economy in Sweden currently encompasses a wide Non-market logic variety of both non-market and market practices. Discussions concerning commercial exchanges, the role of Collaborative consumption profit-driven firms such as Uber and Airbnb, and the emergence of a market logic has created a state of in- Platform capitalism stability. Our results point at several unresolved issues, such as taxation and regulation. Based on these findings, Social media analytics fi Institutional analysis we suggest an expanded de nition of the sharing economy which incorporates both market and non-market Uber logics. Airbnb 1. Introduction Sweden whilst also pointing out the main actors driving current developments. Utilizing Social Media Analytics (SMA) for institutional Sharing-economy platforms are gaining momentum in several in- analysis, we conceptualize the sharing economy as an organizational dustries, offering the potential of efficient utilization of resources, novel field and describe its current state in Sweden, its actors and their im- value creation, and technological disruption whilst also generating in- pact. Our findings reveal that the sharing economy in Sweden currently stitutional turbulence. spans a wide variety of both non-market and market practices and that Being in its infancy, the field is still riddled with controversies and the field is currently characterized by instability and tension. Moreover, ambiguities. On one hand, previous research has documented how the discussions that concern the framing of the sharing economy are cur- notion of a sharing economy and the related term collaborative con- rently dominated by profit-driven firms, most notably Uber and Airbnb. sumption emerged as descriptions of online activities such as content Our data points at several ambiguities that remain unsolved, e.g., sharing, collaborative encyclopedias like Wikipedia, file sharing and taxation and regulation. In view of these findings, we contribute to open-source software, where people are driven by a combination of extant literature by providing a structured analysis of the state of the financial and non-financial motives (Hamari et al., 2015). On the other sharing economy that illustrates its diverse character. Our findings hand, the term sharing economy has become increasingly associated show the importance of incorporating both market and non-market with a form of platform capitalism where profit-driven entrant firms logics into the conceptualization of this phenomenon, and therefore we create two-sided markets (Dreyer et al., 2017) and monetize the in- suggest an expanded definition of the sharing economy toward the end teraction between buyers and sellers (Murillo et al., 2017). This form of of the paper. As popular accounts on the sharing economy in other sharing economy is a truly disruptive force, not only for established countries indicate similar patterns regarding unsolved ambiguities, the firms but also for current institutions, as issues such as tax evasion and results in this paper can, to a certain extent, be utilized to approach regulatory compliance remain unsolved (Laurell and Sandström, 2016, other national contexts. forthcoming). Still being in a fluid state, it is presently unclear how the The paper begins with a brief background concerning the con- sharing economy is framed. Additionally, more empirical data is needed temporary state of the sharing economy and the conceptual approach regarding ongoing developments within this rapidly transforming area employed throughout the article. Subsequently, the method is de- of society. scribed. Next, our results are presented and analyzed. Finally, we pro- In this paper, we explore how the sharing economy is framed in vide a concluding remark together with directions for future research. ⁎ Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (C. Laurell), [email protected] (C. Sandström). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2017.05.038 Received 24 June 2016; Received in revised form 24 May 2017; Accepted 31 May 2017 Available online 16 June 2017 0040-1625/ © 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/BY-NC-ND/4.0/). C. Laurell, C. Sandström Technological Forecasting & Social Change 125 (2017) 58–65 2. Elements of the topic and conceptual approach subjected to change. Those actors which are constrained by the same institutional set-up are together referred to as an organizational field The notion of the sharing economy has become subject to a lot of (DiMaggio and Powell, 1983). The process of organizational field for- attention and even hype in recent years (Felländer et al., 2015). The mation is dynamic, as fields over time aggregate specific compositions term sharing economy and the related notion of collaborative con- of actors, a certain degree of opposition among them, their relative sumption both have their origins in Information and Communication position within a given field, and their functional weight or extent of Technology (ICT)-enabled interactions between users on the internet power within that field (Bourdieu, 1984, 1990). The degree of stability (Botsman and Rogers, 2010; Kaplan and Haenlein, 2010; Wang and of a given field depends upon the extent of power and potential influ- Zhang, 2012) which offer the potential of transitioning societies into a ence an actor has upon other actors to change the rules of the game or post-ownership economy (Belk, 2014). Whilst the sharing economy and impose a new set of conditions that change behavior within a given collaborative consumption still tend to be vaguely defined, one of the field (Bourdieu, 1984, 1990). Thus, actors' actual behaviors depend recently suggested definitions of how the two notions can be related to upon every part of the field, because the respective parts of a specific each other was presented by Möhlmann: field are mutually interdependent (Lewin, 1939). Organizational fields are, therefore, subject to what scholars refer to as the paradox of em- “Collaborative consumption, often associated with the sharing economy, bedded agency (Seo and Creed, 2002). takes place in organized systems or networks, in which participants When analyzing a specific organizational field at a certain point in conduct sharing activities in the form of renting, lending, trading, bar- time, three dimensions are usually studied: (1) the state of the field in tering, and swapping of goods, services, transportation solutions, space, which actors operate; (2) how meanings among actors are diffused; and or money.” (2015, p. 193) (3) relations between actors (Hardy and Maguire, 2008). The term sharing economy has also been used to advocate the shift First, the coexistence of multiple institutional logics in an organi- toward a more sustainable economy and the emergence of a colla- zational field, as seems to be the case for the sharing economy, usually borative commons (Parguel et al., 2017; Bauwens and Kostakis, 2014). represents an enabling condition for changes within organizational This conceptualization of a sharing economy adapts a non-market logic fields (Clemens and Cook, 1999; Sewell, 1992). Additionally, institu- where exchanges are not primarily coordinated via the price me- tional change is more easily accomplished in fields that are emerging as chanism and where actors are largely motivated by factors other than institutionalized practices have not yet been established or stabilized. profit, e.g., altruistic values related to sharing, helping others, and This is particularly the case for emerging fields characterized by fluid contributing to a more sustainable way of life (Prothero et al., 2011; relationships, conflicting values, and absence of norms. Under these Sacks, 2011). circumstances, actors can engage in actions which can transform the The social movement described above stands in contrast to current structure of organizational fields (Fligstein, 1997). developments of the sharing economy. In recent years, a form of plat- Second, institutional change has been shown to manifest as ongoing form capitalism has emerged, using the notion of a sharing economy. and complex struggles over meaning among actors (Czarniawska and Firms such as Airbnb, Uber, and TaskRabbit enable individuals to ex- Joerges, 1996; see also Berger and Luckmann, 1966; Phillips and change services via a platform. These firms have received hundreds of Malhotra, 2008). From this perspective, institutions are created and millions in venture capital (Alsever, 2013), are driven by profit(Slee, formed as meanings are shared and taken for granted, but

Load more